Steve Stockman on Immigration

Former Republican Representative (TX-9)

Opposes comprehensive immigration bill, and no negotiation

Cornyn and Stockman both oppose the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill, which would have granted undocumented immigrants the chance to earn US citizenship. Cornyn ticked off some Tea Party conservatives by expressing willingness to negotiate over
the Senate's immigration bill. He offered an amendment in June that would have blocked immigrants from earning citizenship if stricter border security requirements were not met. But the plan was defeated and Cornyn voted against the Senate bill.

Cornyn's immigration plan was derided by some Tea Party conservative groups, like Heritage Action, which said it would "serve as political cover for those senators seeking to justify their support for amnesty." Like Heritage Action,
Stockman opposes granting legal status to undocumented immigrants at all costs. He spearheaded a (successful) effort to convince Speaker John Boehner to resist negotiating over the Senate's immigration bill altogether.

Constitutional amendment: No citizenship for anchor babies

SECURING OUR BORDERS: Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored a constitutional amendment to prevent citizenship and benefits to anchor babies of illegal aliens Congressman
Steve Stockman sponsored a bill declaring English the official language of the United States

Stop releasing low-risk illegal immigrants.

Stockman signed Letter to DHS on illegal immigrant release

Letter from office of Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ-5) signed by 37 Members of Congress

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We are deeply concerned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using sequestration as a vehicle to further the Administration's disregard for enforcing our immigration laws. Specifically, we are troubled by recent reports that DHS has released hundreds of illegal immigrants, rather than finding cost savings elsewhere in the agency.

Your agency's decision to release "low-risk" illegal immigrants back into the public under the guise of saving money is unprecedented and dangerous. The inability of DHS to prioritize resources for potential cuts suggests this decision was either politically motivated to further the Administration's amnesty goals or, at best, demonstrates agency incompetence.

Given the public safety and national security concerns this decision raises, we respectfully request you halt any further action to release detained
illegal immigrants. Also, please respond to the following questions, regarding individuals already released, pending release, or anticipated to be released:

The number of detainees released and the geographic location of where the releases took place;

Any plans for future releases, and the geographic location of where those releases will take place;

The name of the DHS official who authorized the review of detained illegal immigrants for release;

The criteria used to determine who is eligible for release;

The number of reviewed detainees denied release and the specific reasons for such denials;

A list identifying cuts to the DHS budget implemented prior to the release of the detainees, the budget savings achieved, and why these savings were insufficient;

How DHS is tracking illegal immigrants released under this plan, and whether they will be ordered back to detention centers if funding becomes available.